Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J.Nisha Banu, R.Sakthivel, JJ.
Mrs.Indira Priyadarshini - Appellant
Versus
Mrs. Santhanalakshmi @ Saraswathi and ors. - Respondents
CMA NO.2543 of 2018 and CMP No.19332 of 2018
Decided On : 19-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.V.N.Shanthi
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Manikandan & Mr.M.Elumalai, Ms.P.T.Ramadevi

The legally wedded wife is entitled to family pension and terminal benefits, while children from both marriages share equally in the estate.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 16 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 112 - Family Pension - Legitimacy of marriage - The plaintiff claimed to be the legally wedded wife of Sundaramoorthy, while the first defendant claimed a prior marriage. The Family Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, establishing her legal status and entitlement to terminal benefits. (Paras 7, 19, 24, 26)

(B) Legal Heirship - The court determined that children from both marriages are entitled to share in the deceased's estate, affirming that a nominee acts merely as a trustee for legal heirs. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff married Sundaramoorthy on March 11, 1987, and they had a daughter, Gayathri. The first defendant claimed a prior marriage and sought to deny the plaintiff's claims to terminal benefits after Sundaramoorthy's death.

Findings of Court:
The Family Court declared the plaintiff as the legally wedded wife entitled to terminal benefits, including Family Pension, Gratuity, and other amounts.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the marriages and the rightful claim to terminal benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's marriage was valid and that the first defendant's marriage was void, thus the plaintiff is entitled to all terminal benefits.

Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

Challenging the Judgment and Decree dated February 20, 2018 made in O.S.No.86 of 2005 on the file of the 'VII Additional Family Court at Chennai' ['Family Court' for brevity], the appellant / 1^st defendant therein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The plaintiff married one Sundaramoorthy on March 11, 1987, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Through their wedlock, a female child, namely Gayathri was born. Her husband - Sundaramoorthy, worked as a Clerk in the second defendant's office. While so, the first defendant claimed that subsequent to the plaintiff's marriage, she married Sundaramoorthy. According to the plaintiff, her marriage is the first in point of time and her daughter is the legitimate legal heir of her husband, who passed away on December 18, 2004. Hence, she has every right after his death in terminal benefits. The alleged marriage between the plaintiff's husband and the first defendant is void ab initio and non-est in the eyes of the law. The plaintiff denied the marriage between the first defendant and her husband, as the plaintiff and her husband lived together throughout. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed to declare her as the legally wedded wife of Sundaramoorthy and that she is entitled to receive all his terminal benefits.

FIRST DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. The first defendant filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the marriage between the first defendant and her husband - Sundaramoorthy was solemnized on January 4, 1987, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. In their wedlock, two children were born, one on November 2, 1990, and other on November 22, 1992. Her husband - Sundaramoorthy was employed as a Clerk in the second defendant's office until his death. The first defendant is the lawful wife of Sundaramoorthy and not the plaintiff. Sundaramoorthy lived with the first defendant from the date of their marriage until his death. In fact, at the time of her delivery, her husband - Sundaramoorthy produced an NGO certificate at Government Gosha Hospital, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the death-cum-terminal benefits of her husband - Sundaramoorthy. Therefore, the first defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

FAMILY COURT

5. Based on these pleadings, the Family Court framed the following issues for consideration:

“1) Whether there is no cause of action for filing the suit as contended by the 1st defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sundaramoorthy?

3) Whether the plaintiff is enitled for the terminal benefits of the deceased Sundaramoorthy as prayed?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for?

5) To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled?”

5.1. Then the issues were recast on February 20, 2018, as hereunder:

“1)Whether the plaintiff is the 1^st wife of the deceased Sundaramoorthy?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the terminal benefits of the deceased Sundaramoorthy as prayed?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for?

4) To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled? ”

6. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, 1^st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.6 were marked.

7. The Family Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the Suit and declared that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sundaramoorthy. The plaintiff is entitled to the terminal benefits, such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Family Pension, Death Cum Retirement Gratuity [DCRG], Insurance, and any other benefits and amounts due to the deceased Sundaramoorthy.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant / 1^s